Consumer Rights vs Vendor T & C’s

unholyangel

Butter_Crunch said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

It’s highly unlikely that I’ll get a refund. For the sake of £20, it’s not worth pursuing. I’ve just been unfortunate in that my tank was cellophane wrapped. Other items I’ve received haven’t been sealed, including refill pods. It’s just the carte blanche approach they’ve taken, that’s goaded me. 

The only thing vape wise I can think of that would count as "sealed goods" (for the purpose of the regs) would be coils, which are normally in blister packs. 

Parking_Eyerate

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me if you haven’t read my ‘waffle’, given the level of critical analysis in your previous posts.

Ibuprofen doesn’t have to be sold in blister packs. It is sold in blister packs but that isn’t the only way it could be sold hygienically . As alluded to earlier, I believe the original driving force behind development of the pharmaceutical blister pack was dosage monitoring, not hygiene.

The above said, the first sentence of your last paragraph actually seems to be correct. The exemption is for sealed goods which are unsuitable for return once opened. It is the nature of the goods which is the material concern.

Butter_Crunch

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

Further back in my posts I advised that I’ve received vape products unsealed. To 100% guard themselves, they need to seal each item before they’re sold. Tanks/Pods are so easily cleaned anyway. People sell 2nd hand tanks all the time. I clean mine every now & again in an ultrasonic cleaner. Rinse under hot water & they’re fine. I’ve also bought lots of 2nd hand vape gear. Any tanks I’ve bought, have gone in the ultrasonic cleaner with some sterilising fluid. Rinsed under hot water & they’re good to go. 

The shop isn’t even prepared to assess the tank to see it’s not been used. They would rather lose a customer than treat each return on a ‘case by case’ basis. This is what’s goading me. They have even said that the tank was sealed for hygiene/vape purposes. 

“Unfortunately, we cannot accept any returns for used or opened e-cigarette products which have been sealed for health protection or hygiene purposes (e.g. vape kits and coils) unless faulty, especially given the current pandemic”

Butter_Crunch

Hygiene/Health purposes..

Parking_Eyerate

Butter_Crunch said:

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

Further back in my posts I advised that I’ve received vape products unsealed. To 100% guard themselves, they need to seal each item before they’re sold. Tanks/Pods are so easily cleaned anyway. People sell 2nd hand tanks all the time. I clean mine every now & again in an ultrasonic cleaner. Rinse under hot water & they’re fine. I’ve also bought lots of 2nd hand vape gear. Any tanks I’ve bought, have gone in the ultrasonic cleaner with some sterilising fluid. Rinsed under hot water & they’re good to go. 

The shop isn’t even prepared to assess the tank to see it’s not been used. They would rather lose a customer than treat each return on a ‘case by case’ basis. This is what’s goading me. They have even said that the tank was sealed for hygiene/vape purposes. 

“Unfortunately, we cannot accept any returns for used or opened e-cigarette products which have been sealed for health protection or hygiene purposes (e.g. vape kits and coils) unless faulty, especially given the current pandemic”

I don’t vape so it’s interesting to hear about the second-hand market. Personally, if the product you bought goes in the mouth then I think the retailer has a reasonable argument that hygiene is a concern (I wouldn’t like to buy something new like that and not be assured that someone else hadn’t been able to use it). I understand your point re being able to sterilise them but how many general consumers have an ultrasonic cleaner?
If they don’t accept your points re sterilisation and the second hand market and (quite understandably) you’re not intending to take them to court then, as you say, they will lose your custom. On the other hand, I can’t remember if you have named the retailer but there’s also the possibility that they could gain the custom of other people who might be pleased that they are taking a strict approach to hygiene. As this thread shows, different people do see things quite differently sometimes.

Butter_Crunch

*Parking_Eyerate said:

Butter_Crunch said:

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

Further back in my posts I advised that I’ve received vape products unsealed. To 100% guard themselves, they need to seal each item before they’re sold. Tanks/Pods are so easily cleaned anyway. People sell 2nd hand tanks all the time. I clean mine every now & again in an ultrasonic cleaner. Rinse under hot water & they’re fine. I’ve also bought lots of 2nd hand vape gear. Any tanks I’ve bought, have gone in the ultrasonic cleaner with some sterilising fluid. Rinsed under hot water & they’re good to go. 

The shop isn’t even prepared to assess the tank to see it’s not been used. They would rather lose a customer than treat each return on a ‘case by case’ basis. This is what’s goading me. They have even said that the tank was sealed for hygiene/vape purposes. 

“Unfortunately, we cannot accept any returns for used or opened e-cigarette products which have been sealed for health protection or hygiene purposes (e.g. vape kits and coils) unless faulty, especially given the current pandemic”

I don’t vape so it’s interesting to hear about the second-hand market. Personally, if the product you bought goes in the mouth then I think the retailer has a reasonable argument that hygiene is a concern (I wouldn’t like to buy something new like that and not be assured that someone else hadn’t been able to use it). I understand your point re being able to sterilise them but how many general consumers have an ultrasonic cleaner?
If they don’t accept your points re sterilisation and the second hand market and (quite understandably) you’re not intending to take them to court then, as you say, they will lose your custom. On the other hand, I can’t remember if you have named the retailer but there’s also the possibility that they could gain the custom of other people who might be pleased that they are taking a strict approach to hygiene. As this thread shows, different people do see things quite differently sometimes.

I agree, I wouldn’t want to buy something new either if I thought it’d been used. If I suspected that, I would take it up with the shop. Other shops I know, sell customer returns & ex display items. I would like to think, they’d been sterilised prior to sale. I would clean it anyway just to be on the safe side..

My case with this shop is, they are choosing a carte blanche approach. Some shops will do their upmost to avoid refunding you, when other shops are more lenient. Both coils that the tank came with are still unused & sealed. I haven’t got any other coils that fit this tank, but if I did & tried it, I wouldn’t have even considered asking the shop for a refund.

This is a shop that see’s profit as more important than customer satisfaction. I left a review on trust pilot. Prior to my review they had 1 review back in Feb ‘20. Since my review, they’ve had 8 more reviews telling the world how wonderful they are. I think they’ve felt the pain of that review, as it looks like they’ve been touting for good reviews, in an attempt to push my bad review further down..

Butter_Crunch

I just spotted this on another vape suppliers T & C’s. Reading this, I would have been able to return the tank without a problem:

What can’t be returned?

The below items are excluded from our goodwill returns policy unless faulty or not as described

• Coils
• Opened bottles of liquid
• Personalised products

This does not affect your statutory rights.

Terms and Conditions

• If you happen to have changed your mind about an item, you can return it, provided that it is in sellable condition, for an exchange or refund. Unless faulty this should be done within 14 days of receiving the item.
• We will refund back to original method of payment; this includes any items on sale.
• Unwanted items when we mention sellable condition we expect this to mean;
  1. Original packaging 
  2. Undamaged (excludes normal examination of the product as you might have done in store)
• For online and telephone orders items we will refund delivery provided all the order is returned. If you are returning some of your items, then we will only refund the total cost of the returned items.
• This does not affect your statutory rights

unholyangel

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me if you haven’t read my ‘waffle’, given the level of critical analysis in your previous posts.

Ibuprofen doesn’t have to be sold in blister packs. It is sold in blister packs but that isn’t the only way it could be sold hygienically . As alluded to earlier, I believe the original driving force behind development of the pharmaceutical blister pack was dosage monitoring, not hygiene.

The above said, the first sentence of your last paragraph actually seems to be correct. The exemption is for sealed goods which are unsuitable for return once opened. It is the nature of the goods which is the material concern.

Part of the purpose of a blister pack is to make it tamper proof, including from small children under 5 as a requirement of human medicine regs (health protection). Another is to preserve the medications shelf life/composition. 


So if you're saying ibuprofen don't need to be sold in sealed packaging, I'd ask you where you're buying this pick'n'mix of loose individual pills, because it won't be the UK given our requirements on packaging of medication. 

unholyangel

Butter_Crunch said:

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

Further back in my posts I advised that I’ve received vape products unsealed. To 100% guard themselves, they need to seal each item before they’re sold. Tanks/Pods are so easily cleaned anyway. People sell 2nd hand tanks all the time. I clean mine every now & again in an ultrasonic cleaner. Rinse under hot water & they’re fine. I’ve also bought lots of 2nd hand vape gear. Any tanks I’ve bought, have gone in the ultrasonic cleaner with some sterilising fluid. Rinsed under hot water & they’re good to go. 

The shop isn’t even prepared to assess the tank to see it’s not been used. They would rather lose a customer than treat each return on a ‘case by case’ basis. This is what’s goading me. They have even said that the tank was sealed for hygiene/vape purposes. 

“Unfortunately, we cannot accept any returns for used or opened e-cigarette products which have been sealed for health protection or hygiene purposes (e.g. vape kits and coils) unless faulty, especially given the current pandemic”

Fwiw in light of the mattress judgement I would say there is no doubt that a vape tank can be returned. 

People share vapes, they sell them on etc. Any hygiene concerns could be fixed with hot water or a new drip tip. 

They are not goods that pose a h&h concern just because a seal isn't present. Ergo, the exemption doesn't apply to them. 

Butter_Crunch

unholyangel said:

Butter_Crunch said:

unholyangel said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

So must be sealed due to health & hygiene reasons & not enough that it has a seal, the seal actually has to offer hygiene/health value. 

But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern - that you can't just tie a piece of string around something and claim removing the string has somehow deprived the goods of health/hygiene protection. 

(I've only skimmed the replies following my last post - I'll deal with them later - but the above post immediately caught my eye).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you shifting your ground and backtracking from your original position in saying that? 

Contrary to "Nowhere have I ever said... " your first two posts in this very thread specifically stated that the items had to be sealed for health or hygiene reasons.  I queried whether the regulation actually said that and, so far as I can recall, you seem to have persistently defended the position that the law does say that the reason for sealing has to be for health and hygiene purposes.

To now say "But nowhere have I ever said that H&H needs to be the sole or primary reason for it's packaging design. Merely that, whatever form the seal takes, it has to actually protect against the hygiene/health concern" is a completely different proposition from the one you were originally defending.

You now seem to have shifted to saying that it is not so much the reason for the seal that is important - rather it is how effective it is as a seal for protecting health and hygiene.

That is a completely different point and has nothing to do with my original question, which was about the reason for the seal, not about whether or not it was effective for health and hygiene.

I can easily envisage a seal that is effective for the purpose of protecting health and hygiene, but which was not applied for H&H reasons in the first place. 

Are you now agreeing that the reason (or reasons) for applying the seal is irrelevant in the context of the returns exemption, (which is what I was arguing) and the real question is whether the seal is effective for health and hygiene purposes?

No, my position has not changed. If you design/choose packaging with dual purpose, and one of those purposes is H&H, then it is still for H&H reasons (even if there are also other reasons). For it to be a backtrack, I would have needed to say that the only purpose taken into consideration for it's packaging is H&H. 

It's a bit like classification of vehicles for tax purposes. If the vehicle is primarily suited (aka constructed/designed for that purpose) to carrying goods, it's a van. The van may also be constructed/designed to carry passengers, but as long as it is "primarly suited" to carrying goods, it's still a van for tax purposes. 

I apologise in advance for the length of this post but I worry that you might (unintentionally) mislead readers with this continued proposition of yours. So let’s try this; why do you think the purpose of the packaging matters at all? What would such a requirement actually achieve/deter in practical terms?

If a product is packaged in such a way that irreversibly shows if it has been opened or not, then it will still only be subject to the exemption if it is a product for which health/hygiene is a valid concern.

If a product is one for which health/hygiene is a valid concern but the packaging may nevertheless be reinstated by the consumer (e.g. your mattress ribbon notion), then there isn’t a returns issue because the consumer could (if they were that way inclined) put the packaging back together, send it back and say no more about. It may be a hygiene concern, yes, but that is then for the retailer to worry about. (If the OP could have put the unused vape tank back in a box and sent it back I doubt this thread would exist.)

So, for packaging/sealing which does show if a product has been tampered with, what actually matters in practical terms? To me, the only logical answer is whether the product is something for which health/hygiene is an issue or not. If it isn’t a product for which health/hygiene is considered relevant then the packaging is a non-issue anyway. If it is a product for which hygiene etc. matters then, so long as the packaging is able to show if the product has been opened or not, why would the contemplated purpose of packaging/sealing matter in any way? What would any such ‘intent test’ add? How would you even measure it?

One possible (hypothetical) example that occurs to me is pens like these:

https://www.ryman.co.uk/bic-4-colour-medium-blister-pack-of-2-1-free-fashion-pen

What if, before COVID, the manufacturer chose the packaging because it kept the multipack together, stopped the nibs being extended and stopped the pens getting scratched. Following COVID the retailer starts worrying that pens could be a hygiene risk because people handle them and some people put them in their mouths. Someone then buys this pack online, breaks the blister pack but realises after opening that they aren’t all ‘fashion pens’ as they had hoped so decides to return them. The blister pack functions to show that the pens have been opened and it can’t be closed again. The retailer refuses the return because of hygiene concerns (since information isn’t the point of contention let’s assume that the requisite information was provided as needed).

Should it matter at all that the packaging wasn’t chosen for hygiene reasons, or should the (only) pertinent issue be whether any hygiene concerns associated with pens are severe enough post-COVID that the pens can’t be re-sold once opened? If you maintain that the purpose(s) of the packaging must still matter, can you clearly explain why? Further, how would you set about trying to prove that the manufacturer hadn’t thought about hygiene when choosing to use blister packs in the first place? (My view, as I’m sure you can guess, is that the purpose of the packaging wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter and the longer this discussion continues the more I think that any reference to the intent of packaging in the legislation was omitted deliberately.)

Bringing it back to vape products, even if it were a requirement of the regulation how, in practical terms, could the OP set about arguing that the purpose(s) of the cellophane packaging around the vape tank didn’t include hygiene protection? I think you could only realistically do that by arguing that vape tanks are not products for which health/hygiene is a significant concern. So, again, to all intents and purposes I consider it would nevertheless come back to the nature of the goods/product....

OP - it is apparent that some people see things quite differently but ultimately it is, of course, only for you to decide how you might want to approach the retailer (in case you are still thinking of getting back to them again). Personally, I think any argument regarding the ‘intent’ of packaging is a complete non-starter and the only relevant question is whether there may be serious (enough) hygiene concerns related to re-using vape tanks.

I've not read the waffle but the purpose matters because the goods need to be of a type that require sealing for hygiene/health reasons!

So as I said, ibuprofen requires sold in blister packs. Without that seal, it wouldn't be able to be sold because of the health risk it would pose. 

In the simplest sense, the exemption is for sealed goods, which are unsuitable for return once opened (due to health/hygiene protection). It is not an exemption for all goods that cause a h&h concern, if the goods are sealed. 

Further back in my posts I advised that I’ve received vape products unsealed. To 100% guard themselves, they need to seal each item before they’re sold. Tanks/Pods are so easily cleaned anyway. People sell 2nd hand tanks all the time. I clean mine every now & again in an ultrasonic cleaner. Rinse under hot water & they’re fine. I’ve also bought lots of 2nd hand vape gear. Any tanks I’ve bought, have gone in the ultrasonic cleaner with some sterilising fluid. Rinsed under hot water & they’re good to go. 

The shop isn’t even prepared to assess the tank to see it’s not been used. They would rather lose a customer than treat each return on a ‘case by case’ basis. This is what’s goading me. They have even said that the tank was sealed for hygiene/vape purposes. 

“Unfortunately, we cannot accept any returns for used or opened e-cigarette products which have been sealed for health protection or hygiene purposes (e.g. vape kits and coils) unless faulty, especially given the current pandemic”

Fwiw in light of the mattress judgement I would say there is no doubt that a vape tank can be returned. 
People share vapes, they sell them on etc. Any hygiene concerns could be fixed with hot water or a new drip tip. 
They are not goods that pose a h&h concern just because a seal isn't present. Ergo, the exemption doesn't apply to them. 

I know. I have quite a lot of people who vape where I work. People are always sharing their vape when they’ve bought a particular e-liquid that’s really good. They do that knowingly though. I’m not suggesting for one minute that this shops sells it on as new & at full price.
Since I posted earlier with a vape shops T & C’s, whereby they would accept returns for opened items, I’ve since found other on-line vape shops where they’ll accept returns for opened products as long as they haven’t been used, under your rights to cancel. If I was in a shop & wanted a particular tank which they didn’t have as new. If they said, I have a customer return you can have for £X less. I wouldn’t have a problem buying it. They’re so easy to clean. You see baby stuff, bottles, toys etc for sale in charity shops. Most babies I know, everything gets chewed on. That’s a hygiene risk. Baby bottles will get cleaned in a sterilising unit by the new owner. Toys (I hope) are either washed or given a wipe with an antiseptic wipe.